Using Grounded Theory in Feminist research – A research about women’s
exclusion from administration positions in primary education
Paraskevi Taki
Introduction: The research
This paper concerns the methodology of research conducted within the
framework of a doctoral thesis on “Women in the administration of primary
education”. The phenomenon of women’s exclusion from high-ranking positions of
administration and their under-representation in low-ranking positions was the
stimulus for this research.
Regardless of the institutional framework for the equal participation of men
and women in administrative positions, the exclusion of women from high-ranking
positions of administration and their under-representation in low-ranking positions,
remains a fact in Greece. The phenomenon of exluding women was the stimulus for
research conducted within the framework of elabolating a doctoral thesis on “Women
in the administration of primary education”. It is important to point out that this
phenomenon is observed in a sector that is traditionally characterized as female
dominated (in year 2000, female teachers in Greece constituted 56, 76% of the total
number of teachers).
The research was a qualitative one, and its methodology was based on a
combination between feminist approaches and Grounded Theory. As a female teacher,
interested in gender issues, I considered it important to record the feminine experience
in the field of educational administration, as something similar has not up to now been
addressed by research nor has it been recorded in greek reality. Twenty (20) women,
all of them serving or having served in the administration of public primary education
during the period from 1985 up to 2000, participated - through non-structured
interviews with open-ended questions - in this three year research.
The qualitative research
Qualitative research was mainly developed during the 20th century. After the
war, qualitative research developed in two directions, which are supplementary. New
approaches and interpretative theories are initiated and applied (critical theory,
ethnomethology, phenomenology, feminism, structuralism, etc) and they give
qualitative researchers the possibility to provide social expression to categories of the
population, that remain silent because they were not allowed freedom of speech and
the power to express publicly their problems and experiences.
The methods of qualitative researchers appeared in social sciences through the
continuously increasing interest in the various aspects of the world. In this way,
through qualitative research, the particular characteristics of persons as research
subjects are reflected and reveald (Bryman, 1988). Qualitative research can focus on
one or more characteristics of a sole individual, social group or category of population
of a region or even an entire country. As reported, “both the sociological and
anthropologic qualitative research focus on qualities that concern social roles, social
positions and social relations, as well as on the ways that these qualities are
standardized in uniform compositions (Lazos, 1998: 29).
The feminist methodology in research
As already, reported within the framework of qualitative research, new approaches
and explanatory theories are developed, the feminist theory being among them. The
selection of qualitative method by the feminist researchers (Papageorgiou, 1998: 134)
is based on the fact that the qualitative method, contrary to the quantitative one, does
not have standard models or situations to examine. In qualitative research studies, the
researcher is unrestrained by assumptions and selecting predetermined forms, thus he
or she is encouraged to continuously discover new issues and see reality from the
point of view of the examined subject.
The most basic characteristics of feminist research is firstly, that it focuses on
women, in a research conducted by women, that are feminists. Secondly, there exists
an obvious discrimination between “male” quantitative methods and the feminist
qualitative ones. Thirdly, feminist research is political in that it promotes women’s
active engagement in changing their lives (Stanley & Wise, 1990: 21).
Presenting these characteristics more analytically Weiler (1988) observes that
it is essential for women researchers to initially establish their research, beginning
from the recognition of their own oppression, that they are subjected to as women in a
male dominated society. The process of realizing their oppression, can lead to the
production of theory, but also to greater political action. As mentioned by Iglesi
(2001:49) “the work of women was to detect the multiple relations between what we
conceived as personal and what is socially manufactured in conditions of unequal
relations of authority”.
The second characteristic found in most feminist researches, results from the
special emphasis given to the subjective experience of women, that is to say, to the
importance of experiences and of everyday life. Specifically, “since women have so
often been relegated to the private, domestic arena, their actions in everyday life
define them in a way that is not the case for men, who are accustomed to defining
themselves in the public arena and who exist as actors in a world of abstract thought
and concrete public action (Weiler, 1988: 60). These different ways through which
individuals “exist”, also reveal the gender implications which are impressed in
distinguishable areas of various aspects of daily life, e.g. the exploitation of time, the
way of self comprehension, the different forms of emotions, the way of language use,
etc (Ribbens & Edwards, 1998:9). Attempting, therefore, to comprehend the lives and
experiences of women means that we are interested in an actual specific form of
material life. As pointed out by Weiler (1988:61) the consciousness of women is not
created by male hegemonic ideology or language, but it’s grounded in actuall material
life, which includes obligations and duties that not only differ from those of men, but
are also invisible in male studies of social reality.
The third characteristic of feminist research, is that feminist theory and
methodology “is grounded on commitment to praxis. This political commitment
reflects the essentially materialist theory of knowledge that underlies feminist
research. That, is for feminists, the ultimate test of knowledge is not whether it is
“true” according to an abstract criterion, but whether or not it leads to progressive
change” (Weiler, 1988: 63). The orientation of feminist research towards this
direction also stems from the necessity for investigation and analysis of social reality
in multiple levels. As Bleir (1986) observes “our culture is deeply and fundamentally
structured socially, politically, ideologically, and conceptually by gender as well as by
race, class, and sexuality. It then follows that the dominant categories of cultural
experience (white, male, middle/upper class, and heterosexual) will be reflected
within the cultural institution of science itself: in its structure, theories, concepts,
values, ideologies, and practices” (p. 2).
My contact, as a researcher, with the women that participated in the research,
confirmed everything previously reported by feminists with regard to the fact that life
experiences of women are non-existent in male studies of social reality. Most of the
time, women do not speak out, not because they do not have something to say, but
because they are marginalized – invisible – socially, so that they are not given the
right to speak out. This results not only in objective problems that they have to face
and handle, but also in handling their obligatorily imposed silence. The discussion
conducted through the interviews, was a process of awareness both for me personally
and also for the women that participated in the research. For example, a female school
counselor mentioned that:
“It was the first time that I said so many things that were hidden deeply inside me and you made
me think and see certain things that I had not thought before in such a way”
Also, the extract of the dialogue that followed the end of the interview, is
indicative. The woman principal posed a number of questions, seeking a solution to
the inner conflict that she was experiencing. On one hand, she was seeking some
excuse for her decision for a potential resignation from her administrative position
and on the other, she wanted some encouragement in order to escape from this deadend and to carry on with her career development. My reaction was a question, that I
posed:
“Do you believe that all these years in educational administration have changed you as a person
and in what way? And if you were to quit now and turn back to your life before all this, do you
believe that it would be the same for you and all the others?”
And her answer was:
“ You’re right, I don’t believe that it could be the same, it wouldn’t fill me up because I have
already left…”
Grounded Theory
Grounded Theory was initially presented in 1967, by B. Glaser and A. Strauss
in their study “The discovery of Grounded Theory”. Then, in 1990 Anslem Strauss
and Juliet Corbin, wrote a book titled “Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory”. As implied by its title, the
authors tried to provide the researcher with the basic knowledge of the techniques and
processes necessary for qualitative analysis in the framework of grounded theory. In
1998, a new and renewed publication of the same book came out, titled: “Basics of
Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory”,
which contained more research examples and applications of Grounded Theory.
By the term “Grounded Theory”, Glaser and Strauss (1967) refer to “the
discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research” (p.2). In
other words, theory which derives from data, systematically collected and analysed in
the research process. As the researcher does not begin a research with a preconceived
theory in mind, but begins in an area of study allowing theory to emerge through
research data, the method, the collection of data, the analysis and the eventual theory,
should be in close relation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 12).
In order for the theory of the phenomenon to be characterized as applicable,
four criteria must be located in a well manufactured empirically grounded theory.
These are: fit, understanding, generality and control. That is to say, a theory should be
composed of elements that correspond to the daily reality of this special area that is
researched and that emanates from various data. It must also be fully comprehensible
and possible to be generalized, as it represents a social fact. Finally, this theory
should proceed in a control of elements that compose the phenomenon in question.
Thus, a theory is a lot more than granting knowledge or illustrating a picture. It
attempts to make the individuals that use it capable of explaining and predicting
events, thus giving directions for action (Strauss & Corbin, 1990:23).
Methodology employed in the present research
The research methodology was a qualitative. Methodological tools and
techniques for the collection and content analysis of the raw material proposed by
Grounded Theory were used in the wider framework of feminist research, as it was
influenced by Miles & Huberman (1994), Brenner et al (1985), Stanley (1990).
The interview
The technique used for the collection of raw material was the interview, in
particular, a non-structured interview with open-ended questions. The advantages of
the interview, compared to other methods, are that this person-to-person contact,
allows for a more detailed and deeper collection of data for each issue of study. In
this case, from the same interview we were able to obtain information relative to the
knowledge, the values, the preferences, the attitudes and the convictions of the
individual. Non-structured interview is “an open situation and includes greater
flexibility and freedom” (Cohen & Manion, 1997:376). As pointed out above, “nonstructured interview” involves a predetermined content that serves the objectives of
the research, the formulation and the order of the questions submitted, which “result
from the interaction of the interviewer and of his subject” (Breakwell, 1995: 108).
Moreover, with open-ended questions, as opposed to closed ones, it is not required to
determine certain or pre selected answers, the individual can answer using his own
words, without content restrictions, in the way of expression and in the way of
expression and in the length of the answer (Brener, 1985:21)
The pilot interview
The pilot interview was planned in four stages:
The first stage involved the separation of the topic into areas of research and
the formulation of questions that would bring out specific and detailed objectives. A
list of questions and/ or stimuli1 was created and a diagram with eight axes, which
would be used in the pilot interview, was prepared (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
The second stage involved the selection of the female principal, who would
give the pilot interview. She had to satisfy certain criteria such as age, years of
service, social activity and selection process for her current position, criteria, which
would also constitute common traits of subsequent interviewees. With this decision in
mind, a range of issues such as choice of profession, career development, obstacles
and leadership styles would be examined in the pilot interview. Another criterion2 for
her selection was professional acquaintance i.e. the principal would rather be an old
acquaintance, so that both the interviewer and the interviewee would feel comfortably
during the pilot interview.
During the meeting for the interview – third stage – there was a briefing on
the objectives and an agreement was reached for the method of the interview, i.e., the
recording of the discussion. Moreover, it was clarified that the material of the
interview would be at the interviewee’s disposal, after the transcription of the tape
recording. In the beginning, the interviewee wanted to know the questions of the
interview before the recording. She showed some anxiety, but the climate improved
very quickly, when she was informed that there were no pre-determined questions
and that there would follow a discussion on issues related to her and her position as
principal.
The method used for posing the open questions was that of “the funnel”, that
is to say, in the beginning, there was a general question, which narrowed down to
more specific questions (Cohen & Manion, 1997: 380-381). At the same time
The list of questions/ stimuli constitude the “storage” which at any time could strengthen the research
in further clarifications, elucidations and/or connections of the issues that emerged during the
interview.
2
Professional acquaintance constituted a selection criterion for the pilot interview, because: a) it gave
proportional time margin to exist for the elaboration and advance of the research and b) there existed a
relative comfort for both parties that allowed this direct conduct of the pilot interview.
1
attention was given to the line of raised issues, in terms of the emotional tension that
they would likely create. For example, issues related to her personal, family life and
her choices or the choices of her relations in her immediate environment that affected
her were roughly raised during the interview, so that subsequent more general issues
could create a time margin for climate discharge towards the end of the whole
process.
After the completion of the pilot interview, the fourth stage followed, which
involved the transcription of the tape-recording and systematic and repeated hearings
and readings of the raw material3. It is the stage of content analysis of the raw
material that resulted from the pilot interview (Breakwell, 1995: 116-117).
The content analysis
The fourth stage conducted was the qualitative analysis of the raw material of
the pilot interview. Content analysis is being used as a research tool, for the
comprehension of the material deriving from the open-ended questions. Through
content analysis, the researcher’s objective is to classify all the material that derived
from his/her contact with the individuals participating in the interviews and according
to the context and the issues covered, to classify it into categories (Mostyn, 1985:
117-118). This process, through the phases that it undergoes, leads to the elaboration
and constant re-elaboration of raw material. In the present research, the qualitative
analysis of the raw material of the pilot interview was conducted through the
following phases:
1st phase: Facing the transcribed text
The phase included multiple readings of the transcribed recorded text and at
the same time, multiple hearings of the interview. The main objective was to locate
non verbal elements of communication up to the point that “the nuances of feeling,
tone of voice, pauses, and so forth become evident” (Mostyn, 1985: 136)
This first elaboration of raw material aimed at validation of the research
questions. Namely, it was investigated how and what degree these questions were
based on the actual open questions of the interview, if the clarifying questions
function as “bridges” for issues raised in the interview, if there were any gaps or
Barbara Mostyn (1985) with regard to the term “raw material” reports: “ The raw material of the
qualitative research is most typically words (…) words are the determinants of consciousness. As
researchers, we are essentially dealing with what respondents can tell us, not necessarily with what is
going on inside their minds” (p.118)
3
omissions and if any contradictions resulted. A list containing all of the above
elements was created, in order to deal with them more extensively in the next
interview. During this first elaboration of the raw material, there was intense
reflection on the new questions that came up. Based on the above, a review of the
original questions of the research was conducted and new questions resulted (Strauss
and Corbin, 1990: 187).
2nd phase: Categorization
In this second phase the objective was to categorize the material. The
following steps were followed:
1. Raw material was systematically stored in three groups: questions,
answers and code.
2. Through exhaustive elaboration of the data of the pilot interview (1st
phase), there were selected and allocated in bold – in the second column –
all the extracts that on one hand related to the main questions of the
research and on the other, to the meanings, the new ideas, the new
questions that had resulted. These were categorized, in subcategories and
were given a code number each. Apart from the number, a different colour
was also used for each one of these subcategories. Additionally, a title was
given to each subcategories (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 65)
It should be mentioned here that a connection between the main questions
– as initially formulated before the pilot interview – and the titles of the
subcategories, was sought. Similary, the new elements that had resulted
were categorized accordingly, which clarified but also promoted certain
aspects of the research.
Finally, it should be pointed out that during the creation of the
subcategories and before their coding, a general data consideration was
attempted and a careful assessment of their quality (e.g. if the answers
where clear or not, how were the responses related to the research subjects
formulated or the interviewee’s relations with the “others”, the degree of
certainty to which she expressed her views, etc.).
Through this process the list of issues was completed, a list that had begun
to take shape during the 1st phase of probing deeply into the matter and
which had to be clarified or be raised in the next interview4.
3. The third step, involved the creation of wider categories of subcategories.
The following categories were created: a) immediate environment of
female principals, b) professional environment, c) reasons for participation
in administration, d) way of direction and leadership style. The creation of
these categories resulted from the analysis of this specific pilot interview
and in this sense they were not the final categories of the research. These
categories were subsequently extended on the basis of the new elements
that resulted from the following interviews.
4. Then followed a time interval, during which answers to questions were
shaped with regard to the particular coding of data,to the degree the initial
objectives were achieved and how these are confirmed. Moreover, the
questions that seemed important and concerned relations with the
professional environment of the particular female principal were isolated.
The completion of this process allowed the analysis to advance to the next
phase, i.e. the drafting of the final report.
3rd phase: The final report
According to Mostyn (1985), the final report must have enough clarity for the
readers that were not privileged enough to assist in the interviews or read its content
extensively so as to access first hand information on what happened.
During this phase, the fourth category of the pilot interview (leadership style)
constituted the final form of the report. The final report presents an overall picture of
direction and leadership style of women in primary education: a) as this was captured
by what the female principal said during the pilot interview and b) as confirmed and
enriched by corresponding literature (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 42-43)
Specifically, the views of Miles and Huberman (1994: 86) on intermediary
analysis, as the one of the pilot interview, was taken into consideration. As pointed
4
Miles and Huberman (1994: 78-80) in their presentation of various techniques on a precocious
analytic work and specifically in the one titled: “The approach of analysis through the help of
summary” (Summary-Aided Approach of Analysis) analytically reported the advantages that this
analysis provides to the researcher, as the fact that he/she is forced to absorb his/her material, acquire a
clearer sense of the case that he/she’s researching and undergoes self-criticism with regard to the
sufficiency of the data that he/she has collected. This process leads to the next step of the collection of
data, i.e., planning and often rephrashing of coded parts and additionally to the plans of the analysis.
out by the authors, the first intermediary analysis does not only have the objective of
promoting the collection of data, but also of leading to successively deeper and more
complete actions for the analysis. Basically a good intermediary analysis is something
that helps us redefine our perceptions of the case under study. Each intermediary
analysis will be the first of many. Their power springs from the investigation, the
recapitulation and the awareness of data. Their potential weakness is the danger of a
shallow elaboration, of premature conclusions and of insufficient data. Apart from the
analysis of the pilot interview, two other intermediary analyses followed, during the
research, after the sixth and twelfth interview.
The process of the qualitative content analysis of the pilot interview was also
followed in all the interviews of the research. Prerequisite for each subsequent
interview was to detect new questions, which resulted from each preceding interview,
in order to pose them as new questions, up to the point of ‘informative saturation’ of
the research (Claser & Strauss, 1967:61-62).
During the conduct of the research, the point of view mainly pointed out by
feminist researchers in the literature (Weiler, 1994) was confirmed, that is to say, that
between the researcher and the subjects of the research, interaction should exist and
that the researcher should not treat his/her subjects from the “specialist’s” point of
view, i.e. the one who knows everything. There existed moments, during the
interview that it was necessary to share his/her own experiences. And indeed, while in
the beginning I started the process of the pilot interview thinking that I would
investigate a specific area, strictly related to one sole sector in the women’s life; I
soon realized that what I was listening to was their life histories. This was also due to
the fact, I believe, that I myself am a schoolteacher, with many years of service in
primary education and the interview gave the participants and I a chance to share
common experiences. The application of this research not only gave me an insight of
the situation existing in the administrative ranks of primary education but it also
turned out to be a personal journey of self-knowledge, an experience that still remains
invaluable.
Conclusions
As a conclusion, I would like to point out that the use of Grounded Theory in
feminist research, as used in this present research, contributed to emphasising the
significance of elaborating and continuously re-elaborating the material of the
interviews. This process allowed us to produce theory, in order to stress the deeper
causes of women’s exclusion from high-ranking administrative positions in education
and of their under-representation in low-ranking positions. It also allowed us to see
even the slightest differentiations among the women participating in the research.
Furthermore, it contributed to the women that participated in the research, a) with
awareness concerning the existence and projection of the dominant/ bureaucratic
model of administration in education and b) with the opportunity to testify their own
experiences and – by questioning the dominant male model of administration – to
project the need for the creation of an alternative administrative model without biases
and sex discriminations.
References
Bleir, R. (1986). Feminist Approaches to Science. U.S.A.: Pergamon Press
Inc.
Breakwell, G. M. (1995). Η Συνέντευξη. Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα.
Brenner, M., Brown, J., Canter, D. (Eds.) (1985). The Research Interview.
Uses and Approaches. London: Academic Press.
Βryman, A.(1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London:
Routledge Publications.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded Theory. In J.A. Smith, R. Harre & L. Van
Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 27-49). London: Sage.
Ribbens, J. & Edwards, R (1998). Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative
Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. London: Sage Publications.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1997). Methodology of Educational Research.
Athens: ekfrasi [Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1997). Methodologia Ekpedetikis Erevnas.
Athina:ekfrasi]
Igglesi, H. (1993). Women's Faces, Facades of Consciousness. Construction
of the Female Identity in Greek Society. Athens: Odysseas [Igglesi, H. (1993).
Prosopa Ginekon, Prosopia tis Sinidisis. Sigrotisi tis Ginekias Taftotitas stin Elliniki
Kinonia. Athina : Odysseas]
Igglesi, H. (2001). Reflection on Feminist Research. Outline of a Fickle
Relation. Athens: Odysseas [Igglesi, H. (2001). O Anastohasmos sti Feministiki
Erevna. Skiagrafisi mias Amfithimis Shesis. Athina: Odysseas]
Lazos, G. (1998). The Problem of Qualitative Research in Social Sciences.
Athens: Papazisi. [Lazos, G. (1998). To Provlima tis Piotikis Erevnas stis Kinonikes
Epistimes. Athina: Papazisi]
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Miles, H. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook Qualitative
Data Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Mostyn, Β. (1985). The Content Analysis of Oualitative Research Data: A
Dynamic Approach. In M. Brenner et al (eds.) The Research Interview: Uses and
Approaches. London: Academic Press.
Pandit, M.R. (1996). The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of the
Grounded Theory Method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4), December 1996. (Available:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html)
Papageorgiou, G. (1998). Methods in Sociology Research. Athens: TypothitoG. Dardanos. [Papageorgiou, G. (1998). Methodi stin Kinoniologiki Erevna. Athens:
Typothito-G. Dardanos.]
Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1990). Method, methodology and epistimology in
feminist research processes. In L. Stanley (ed) Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and
Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. London and New York: Routledge, ppl 20-60.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research - Grounded
Theory: Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Weiler, K. (1988). Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class & Power.
Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc.
Weiler, K. (1994). Freire and a Feminist Pedagogy of Difference. In P.
McLaren and C. Lankashear (eds.). Politics of Liberation: Paths from Freire, London
and New York: Routledge, pp. 12-40.